This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
If a RS discusses a vote for a bill (or similar) and then lists either supporters or opposition, when is that DUE in a BLP about the politician? I asked a similar question earlier this year [1]. Recently a sentence to the effect of "[BLP] was one of # who voted against NATO expansion" was added to several politician's BLPs [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
My question/concern is regards to what is needed to establish weight for inclusion in such a case. What sort of sourcing is needed for such vote listing to become DUE? Personally I think any addition like this needs two things. First, it needs sourcing that says why the BLP's vote was significant. That shouldn't be just "they voted against the Obviously Good Bill". Rather the addition to the Wiki article needs to explain why that vote is significant in context of the politician. "Senator X has consistently supported programs for [cause] including these [list]." Second, it needs a RS that supports not only that they voted for X (that could be confirmed by government records). It needs a RS to say why this vote is significant to the senator. Else we are engaged in OR by using our own opinions rather than RSs to say the vote is DUE in context of the BLP.
In the case of the MTG article the talk page seems mixed on inclusion with some saying this supports existing themes in the article (to what extent is that OR?) while others disagree. In the case of the Miller BLP a large swath of the article is little more than statements that she voted for/against various things. This seems to be a general issue with political BLPs. I will add a project politics notice. Springee ( talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is saying every vote is worthy of inclusion, neither is it true that a single vote could never be included if that vote got enough coverage and was relevant or important enoughThis seems like a bit of a non sequitur; I didn't say anyone was saying the first thing, and I was not asserting the second. I do think immediately juxtaposing a politician's stated opinions with how they vote--when that connection is not made in the source--is inappropriate synthesis. But it's likely that a secondary source on how a politician voted will say something about their history. Ovinus ( talk) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I think theres a severe misreading of WEIGHT here, in that people think that if they can find five or ten sources on something that means it has the due weight to be included. The real question is how much weight is given to this one vote in proportion to say their entire career, or term of office, or even year. If something is a footnote in the overall coverage of the person it lacks the weight to be included here. If it is something that a biography of the person would give some space to then it may be appropriate to include. But just because you can find a dozen news articles saying so and so voted against some bill does not mean that it has due weight to be included. nableezy - 23:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
But if sources do not give it weight relative to every other thing they give weight to then it doesnt belong.I think Andrevan was just trying to keep on track with policy. The green words from your post above sound like you have got the policy wrong, which is all Andre said. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, I'll start by saying I am sympathetic to your position that if a BLP already discusses a lot of related content (MTG and Ukraine) then it's easier to say her vote here is DUE based on being part of a pattern. In reviewing The Hill I see it mentions how these people voted on several bills but I don't see that it makes any point beyond that. Basically the source article is a list in text format. So my question is how would we decide this content is DUE in MTG's article but not in say Dan Bishop's article? I'm asking for a generalized guideline rather than something specific for this instance since this is something that happens quite a bit. I also appreciate the thoughtful engagement you've been offering. Springee ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
As a general group question, if an example like this comes up where an article says "This is a bill and here is what the bill is about. Here are the people who voted for/against" how would we decide if this content is DUE (or BALANCEASPECTS which is what we normally mean when we say DUE)? The discussion above is long but I'm not sure we have any better guidance than when we started and this discussion seems far less clear vs the one from earlier this year. Springee ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
People, you can't fight in here. This is
|
---|
|
Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:Astrology#RfC about short description. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 01:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be an NPOV issue in Space Race in which there are concerns that some or all of that article may be unjustifiably skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints. Attempts to rectify the issue had been made by me and others, such as the addition of this edit out of the belief that they are of pertinence to the presentation of the information within this article.
Unfortunately, around two editors had reverted those under the very vague reasons of "unencyclopedic", "trivia" or "not suited here", and as it reached 3RR I first attempted to reach one of the reverters at talk page to discuss the issue, but found out that it was semi-protected. Thus I'd had initially brought the issue to the article talk page for discussion or solicit third opinions from subject matter experts.
As the discussion went on, I proofread the article once again and found out more issues:
This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945.inaccurate.
Valentina Tereshkova, was launched into space on Vostok 6 on June 16, 1963,[90] as (possibly) a medical experiment. She was the only one to fly of a small group of female parachutist factory workers (unlike the male cosmonauts who were military test pilots),[91] chosen by the head of cosmonaut training because he read a tabloid article about the "Mercury 13" group of women wanting to become astronauts, and got the mistaken idea that NASA was actually entertaining this.
Procedurally dropped due to
WP:BURNOUT related to
Chronic Covid Syndrome.
At least for me, it fails Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as it is skewed towards pro Russian viewpoint, no matter how subtle it is. In a larger way, it could invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
They could get an impression that USSR/Russia's achievements were overrated or bloated to the detriment of the US, even though there is a dictum in the FAQ at the article talk page header stating that the race resulted in a tie and no one "won" the race. As a result some of them would go dig deeper and find out that there are nuances or caveats behind those achievements and proceed to either edit the page or just make a fuss about it. If it's reverted or so on then they could easily switch to the latter, where it could very well become something like the Streisand effect and produce a perception that Wikipedia violated WP:NPOV conventions by "secretly loving Russia" in here which I fear could produce net harm to the project in the long term.
As the discussion there had headed into a deadlock, with no input from subject matter experts as of yet, I have decided to raise this issue at this noticeboard. Any help would be appreciated in resolving this NPOV issue. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute has by now extended to Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race where after a short RR, me and User:TompaDompa had temporarily restored the following passage while marking it up for discussion.
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then
FAI definitions.
Relevant references:
The side advocating the removal claimed their rationale on the grounds of WP:MINORASPECT, although there was long and implicit consensus to preserve the passage before today. Conversely, me and perhaps some others like subject matter expert User:JustinTime55 who had upheld the passage because FAI rules at 1960s required takeoff and landing inside spacecraft. In this case, distinction matters and it would violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and become a case of WP:POVDELETION if the fact was left out.
Taking account of other editors' concerns about WP:MINORASPECT while mindful of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance where suppression of information risk making more problems rather than resolution, I had attempted to relegate the passage into a Template:NoteTag which can be seen here. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.I'll also note that https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his (cited above) says
The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books.and
as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight.So going by that source, the assertion that Shepard's was the first "proper" spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view that must not be included. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information, just as a note. According to the page, textually speaking, they merely state that Gagarin was the
first to orbit the Earth. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
From a quick Google books search, I was able to uncover the following:
The problem was, under FAI rules, a pilot must stay with his ship from takeoff to landing. ail out and it doesn't count.
Years later, when Russian officials admitted that Gagarin had ejected from the Vostok 1 spacecraft during descent and did not land in the same craft in which he started his journey, some FAI officials raised a technicality that questioned the official status of his “first-in-spaceflight” record. Founded in 1905, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) is the world organization responsible for setting standards and keeping records within the fields of aeronautics and astronautics. In 1961, the FAI rules required that a pilot (that is, an astronaut or cosmonaut) must land with the spacecraft to be considered as having achieved an official spaceflight worthy of entry into the FAI book of records.
It was the second source stating that it was FAI officials and not average Joes that raised the technicality of his "first in spaceflight" record. That itself says a lot. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months later,
when the International Aeronautical Federation, or FAI (the
acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to certify
the world records being claimed for the flight. A longstanding
FAI rule could have meant an embarrassing propaganda defeat:
to qualify for any new world flying records, a pilot must take
off and land in his aircraft or spacecraft. The rule book was
quite explicit on this point.
As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an
ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the
booster in the event of a launch failure. The same system was
to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three-ton
spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large enough
to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing. The pilot was
supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 10,000 feet and come
down separately. Gagarin had almost certainly used this
method.
In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet
delegate with the crucial question: “Where was the pilot on in
return in relation to the space vehicle?” Perhaps sensing a plot
to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the Soviet
spokesman loudly protested: “Ask the Americans if the U.S.A.
believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were actually
made. All the people of the world have already endorsed
Gagarin’s flight and have accepted it as fact.” The wrangling
went on for five hours, with the FAI officials demanding
documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship and the
Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as
obstructionist and insulting.
Finally, as dinnertime approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the Soviet
version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the capsule.
Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that
Gagarin had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would
point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their
claims. But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough
memory to be a successful liar. A year later cosmonaut
Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he
blurted out, “Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the
ship”; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a
small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful
Soviet space officials would point to it as “the first time that a
crew could land in its ship.” Ten years later a book by chief
Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would describe
how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while Gagarin
himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine.
Still, that isn't 1971 yet, when the full details of his landing came out. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight.
Some authors speculate that in the case if FAI were to reject Gagarin's record based on a technicality, Shepard may have been considered to perform the first spaceflight.
expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general. PaulT2022 ( talk) 15:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The particulars of this process, and the fact of Gagarin's separate landing, were not revealed until 1978.
Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.
However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.- every word here is a misrepresentation:
FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished(paraphrasing the penultimate paragraph from here)
Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.
Some sources speculated that per formalistic interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.They would be a note tag attached to both Gagarin's "first human spaceflight" and Shepard's "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft" in those Timeline articles. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coastis the personal opinion of an editor, which carries no weight here. It is not appropriate to include this fringe view in the articles, not even in a footnote and not even if we clearly describe it as a fringe view. Debunking it unprompted would be legitimizing it (as worthy of being explicitly debunked) to an extent that is simply not justified by the sources we have. As Ilenart626 noted, this is covered at Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1, which currently says:
That is the proper place and manner to cover this information. Sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect from what I've seen. That makes it a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included because it would be giving it undue weight. The same goes for Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft—it's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included. At best, we can place {{ FAQ}} on the talk pages (see Talk:September 11 attacks for an example of how the template can be used). If we do so, it should say something like:At about 7,000 metres (23,000 ft), Gagarin ejected from the descending capsule as planned and landed using a parachute. [1] There were concerns Gagarin's spaceflight record would not be certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. [2] Gagarin and Soviet officials initially refused to admit that he had not landed with his spacecraft, [3] an omission which became apparent after Titov's flight on Vostok 2 four months later. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth. [4]
What do you think about this, PaulT2022? TompaDompa ( talk) 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Q: Didn't Alan Shepard technically make the first human spaceflight?
A: No. This idea stems from old Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules carried over from aviation stipulating that the pilot had to land inside the vessel, while Yuri Gagarin parachuted out of Vostok 1. The FAI decided to certify Gagarin's record and amended their rules to not require landing inside the spacecraft as they judged that landing safely was the important part. Gagarin is almost universally recognized as having made the first human spaceflight, and the conception that he did not is a WP:FRINGE view.
Thus, he did not "legally" complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body.
If nationals from two different countries claim a record, it is the FAI's job to examine the submitted documentation and make a ruling as to who has accomplished the feat first.
Prematurely closing this discussion would be akin to saying a given political candidate had won the election when there are uncounted postal votes that could result in a loss or a tie. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Most conversations do not need to be closed.per WP:WHENCLOSE.
Silence is the weakest form of consensusper WP:SILENTCONSENSUS and it has now been challenged—several editors here agree that this is not appropriate to include.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.per WP:ONUS. You are promoting what is per the sources a WP:FRINGE view in article space. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, it would be more precise to state that it is (or was) a significant minority view rather than a "fringe" opinion, as it was the FAI officials that raise the technicality to the Soviet delegates.
This states that Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy.
Aside from those, one thing which I notice that was overlooked from this discussion so far is that there is subtle yet significant etymological differences between "first man in space", "first human spaceflight mission", and "technically completing the first human spaceflight mission". It is not helpful to move the goalpost within this context, such as conflating the three altogether. I will make a table here to explain it easier.
Question | Yuri Gagarin | Alan Shepard |
---|---|---|
First person to cross the 100km Karman line boundary and into space? | Yes. | No. |
First human spaceflight mission (irrespective of outcomes or technicalities)? | Yes. | No. |
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions? | No. He ejected out of his spacecraft before landing. | Yes. He was in the spacecraft all the time. |
The sources simply implied Point 3 based on the formalistic interpretation of 1961 FAI rules. Moreover, aside from WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:CHILDPROTECT (due to an unfortunate fact that a thread attempting to do p*do advocacy is just above this Outpost Tavern), there is an interesting caveat in WP:NPOV in the form of WP:NONAZIS prohibiting views that attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany, Nazism and the likes from appearing on Wikipedia, presumably broadly construed. It is more than the simplistic discontent among readers.
As time goes on, we may very well see the editing community outlawing any edits or views that promote Russocentric totalitarian beliefs like Rashism or Russkiy Mir (Russian world) in the same fashion as above. When it happens any contents within any topic that is deemed too slanted towards pro-Russian viewpoints will be up for challenge, as with concurrent to the discrediting of Russophilic ideologies, a section in
WP:NORACISTS states that racists generally believes in That their culture is superior to others
and editors would want to err on the safe side, particularly given the association of Gagarin mythos by Putin with his war and Russia in general, and the display of separatist flags by Russian cosmonauts within the
International Space Station.
This is entirely similar to the Midas Curse. In fact as per this Vanity Fair article which is already put here, the beginning had already started. Hence, if we remove the passage in the name of fixing "false balance", more likely than not we'd be ending up reinventing the wheel and end up on the starting point once again which by all means is going to be unnecessarily disruptive to all of us. Considering that the retention of passage in full may be akin to fighting fire with fire and causing undue weight, at this time the rewritting of passage into something as anodyne as possible and subsequent relegation into a note tag may be the least bad solution out, within the situation that is like between rock and a hard place.
I digress, indeed. But the gist is circumstances may wildly change so much that it would be better not to commit the sin of omission of throwing the baby out with the water. In the meantime only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
would remain as main text within the articles, because what's the point of having to eject from spaceships like Soyuz or Dragon every time when there is a room of improvement to eliminate this major discomfort? It's an impressive and significant technological advancement on its own, despite being a "one small step".
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 17:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions?- this is unsourced, as there's no reliable source that states FAI ever recognised who made the first human spaceflight (besides the Angelo's childrens' book written by a non-expert), and its trivial to verify that FAI indeed didn't make such judgement.
Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body". But at this stage, I'd be happy to rewrite the proposed notetag into a more anodyne manner. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page, that would in fact be a feature rather than a bug. By trying to get people to read about a WP:FRINGE view, you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. WP:ELYES states that
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The Smithsonian article in particular could be an ad hoc FAQ for readers, not unlike as proposed by Tompa. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. Rather, it clarifies that there is no controversy—that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. We shouldn't try to inform readers about WP:FRINGE views they are not already aware of. I added the link to the FAQ, because that's the appropriate place to put it in this context. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this?, maybe. However the WP:FRINGE invocation that's now being thrown around like a shibboleth also contains the BBC Trust policy that
This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
First interplanetary escape without undercarriage cutoff.[clarification needed]would be FRINGE-y as well. However obviously that would be not germane in the discussion here due to it being in different era. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER may be of relevance while Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space and balance detoured that
Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers.
Please note that the scope of this discussion isn't really limited to Gagarin and Shepard alone; the topic include other pro-Russian POV issues such as the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. However as recently COVID hit me and I'm still grappling with neurological issues, I may leave this all entirely to the community to run on its own after the issues regarding Gagarin and Qian Xuesen were resolved.
Fine. I rewrote the proposed tag ground up into the following:
Some sources reported that Vostok 1 did not meet the
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's requirements of establishing records due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.
Otherwise, taking PaulT2022's suggestion, for this time I will put the Tech Republic link and some of the rest into the Timeline articles, this time as a citation on Gagarin's "first human spaceflight mission" or so, while removing the text from Alan Shepard's section which according to page history has been there for about five years. 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
204.15.72.92 ( talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said? Sure, however as the old saying goes, you can't unring a bell. Please keep that in mind next time. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
If Gagarin and Titov both ejected before landing, the Soviet Union would lose its spot in history as the first nation to launch a man into space. But I guess it's late now. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 21:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books.and
After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules.In other words, there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades. The idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. It's time to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decadesyet. But fine, I'll move on to the next section for now. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
if two nations were going to vie for the record of first in space, the FAI should have clear rules to determine a winner.
The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed.
get a lifecan often be construed as
appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Frequently asked questions
|
I'm not sure how that would be different from disruptive editing. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, it can also be argued from the other way that this discussion has only a participation of a handful of users without inputs from actual subject matter experts and the rest of the editing community, therefore looking more or less, to paraphrase a quote from For All Mankind (TV series), an "orchestrated discussion". To illustrate more, the page views of the articles stand in the thousands. Moving from that, it's helpful to read this too. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 10:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established. Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum then be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead". This means that the affected pages are restored to versions like this on an interim basis, pending the outcome of this discussion.
Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted, which is very likely behind the rationale of putting up the FAQ templates. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 12:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor.Please WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
originally agreed upon. I proposed it, but as I said
I don't mind the FAQ being removed.You are in favour of including it. Ilenart626 is opposed. I'm not entirely sure what PaulT2022 thinks. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Speaking about the controversy itself and just to explain more of the context, this would be akin to the case of
Ferdinand Magellan. Despite dying in the
Philippines in the middle of the circumnavigational expedition, he was widely reported in textbooks as being the first to circumnavigate the globe for many years. Now the
National Geographic and History Channel had came out to ask people to think again
and that someone else may deserve the true credit for being the first person to circumnavigate globe
.
A more precise analogy can be found in
Claims to the first powered flight. For example, it is arguable that
Hiram Maxim had achieved a first powered heavier than air flight simply because during trials in 1894, the machine lifted and was prevented from rising by the outriggers. During its test run, all the outriggers were engaged, showing that it had developed enough lift to take off, but in so doing, it pulled up the track; the tethered "flight" was aborted in time to prevent disaster
, with exactly the same vein used to justify Gagarin's claim. To put it simply, it left the rail, flew a little ways only to crash. But is he remembered as the first man to fly a heavier-than-air?
Moreover,
Alberto Santos-Dumont rather than Wright Brothers was recognised in
Brazil as the first person to make a flight simply because it's the first of their kind recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
. There were differing views of criteria in order to gain recognition as first heavier than air flight too and within such backdrops no doubt there's a point to be nitpicky by law and by fact records, just like
the list of firsts in aviation with First confirmed manned powered flight
made by
Clément Ader in particular, coupled with the present wider turbulent context, not helped with this
Newsweek article from two months ago alleging Gagarin of touching the Queen's leg. There'd still be the argument on whether to classify
John Glenn's Friendship 7 as technically the first to complete the first human orbital spaceflight by the strict interpretation, had Shepard beat Gagarin into space.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
By now the rough consensus appeared to favor the restoration of the FAQ templates, so I had proceeded to edit the according articles' talk pages. However, those templates may be superseded if it's decided to move the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/FAQ pursuant to PaulT2022's suggestions. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 11:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
However, speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility, while we had already circled the wagon so many times regarding the problems that would arise if the passage was completely left out, even as a template in talk page. I'm pretty sure you have noticed the guideline stating that especially contentious content should be relegated to the talk page rather than deleted.
implicit consensusto include the FAQ, and adjusting its phrasing doesn't create one. Stop misrepresenting the discussion as you have repeatedly done. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
implicit consensusand
stop misrepresentating the discussion, like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it. As for the very latter, no, quite the opposite and not the first time. Instead, aside from the "implicit consensus", I see that you had mistaken my brief restoration edits of interim nature pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST as disruptive, while giving no condemnation to edits made by Ilenart626. Please note that at worst it reeks of double standards and even be construed as gaslighting, which of course would not be taken kindly by the editing community. (Disclaimer: The original computer network was down not unlike the 2022 Rogers Communications outage so I have to use another network at another place, hence the address difference).
Last original encounter with one of the nine major planets recognized in 1981. These were allowed to stand without much fuss, making this more akin to unnecessarily make a mountain out of a molehill from that perspective alone. If this debacle occurs on Simple English Wikipedia, then you might have a point as that Wikipedia is described by Tim Dowling of The Guardian newspaper that "the Simple English version tends to stick to commonly accepted facts". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it– I'm the one who made the improvement edit. I'm telling you that I don't agree that it means that the FAQ should be included. You could have asked me what I thought rather than assuming that I would be in favour of including the FAQ, and it's not like my approval would instantly create consensus in favour of including the FAQ anyway. The reason I called your edits disruptive is that you agree that the material is WP:FRINGE, that there is no controversy, and that the material does not belong in article space—and yet you added the material to article space to make a WP:POINT. I already told you this. You are being disruptive by promoting WP:FRINGE views that you acknowledge are fringe views, by WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, and by refusing to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 ( talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Due to the unfortunate fact that some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory, alongside problems in my original computer network, it's better to do a temporary mutual withdrawal and take a break for a few days now.
Next, since this is a semantical debacle, I'd have to retract my earlier statements that agrees with Tompa's ad nauseum assertion regarding WP:FRINGE whether tacit or not, on the grounds it was a product of mischaracterization as, to quote a comment, "scientific question".
In the meantime an administrator from Simple English Wikipedia had been invited to comment on this discussion, in order to advice on the suitability of forking contents from Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race into Simple English Wikipedia. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory– yes, you made accusations of gaslighting. Now stop moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter if the question is one of science or semantics—per the sources, the position that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE one. It makes no difference if that's because it's a WP:FRINGE interpretation of "(human) spaceflight" semantically or because of some scientific reason. It's still WP:FRINGE, per the sources. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
accusations of gaslighting, it was made in the context of your misintepretation of procedural interim edits pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST. For all the rest here, I would therefore share the page histories of Timeline of the Space Race, Timeline of space exploration and Space Age so that what were the "status quo ante bellum" would be clear enough in the air.
insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion.
For the record the passage had actually stayed in the articles for six years or so, and in practice to arouse readers' interest in learning info from Wikipedia itself, including these kind of facts is also encouraged and even mandated, provided they are verifiable and given the proper weight, the latter again vulnerable to differing subjective judgement. This is not to mention that given the current international situation where readers are much more enthusiastic to challenge the veracity or extent of achievements made by Russia or USSR akin to lustration.
Summing these up, a number of middle way solutions have been proposed, such as the FAQ templates in the talk page of these articles and/or on relevant WikiProjects, alongside addition of footnotes. If (re-)inclusion of the passage is judged to be more preferable, then it certainly have to be rewritten so that it, to paraphrase a comment does not diminish Gagarin's flight in any way. Within the affected articles, a possible example would be the paring down the passage on Alan Shepard to just First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft.
and leaving the rest into footnotes. I'd be thankful too if you can advise on how to proceed from here.
193.233.171.17 (
talk) 19:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject(i.e. the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively). TompaDompa ( talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft, the Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler describes Freedom 7 as
1st flight to end with the crew aboardon page 25. It's near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yuri Gagarin becomes the first person fly into space and completes one orbitand
Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space on a sub-orbital flight. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
first to land inside the spacecraftgoes more to technical achievements while Dyumin's
first grandfather in spacegoes more to "personal achievements", which the former would undoubtedly fit into the criteria in Timeline of the Space Race's lead sections specifically that of
technical innovation. After all it's bound to be a sheer absurdity in the (aero)space field if pilots and by extension passengers cannot make their way home safely without jumping out of their craft in the midst of their landing to this day, though presently I have no strong feelings against including Dyumin's fact in those articles and/or elsewhere in Wikipedia since I actually spend more time reading than editing. Regarding that the
source is also neither on history of space exploration or the history of the Space Race specifically but on the history of human spaceflight, concurrently they are interwoven or overlapping to each other as far as I can see regarding the standard perception of those fields. NASA has this stating
Unlike the early U.S. human spaceflight programs, Gagarin did not land inside of capsule. Instead, he ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute. Different from Praxis logs and just like most other citations, they reported on the fact that Gagarin did not remain inside the spacecraft, although all it takes to reach to the conclusion as explicitly stated by Praxis is an immediate inference probably in the veins of disjunctive syllogism. Taking account of the logical aspects, I'd say that they meets the bar for "other prominent definitions".
Disputed participation notesnear the bottom; the "some sources" wordings could be useful in this context as suggested earlier to cover that bit of info regarding the discrepancy of the Vostok 1 landing. The footnote methodology would also be useful if future disputes or discrepancies arise, in the ongoing advent of space exploration. After all despite our feelings and whatever is written, the Space Race sections of those timelines are bound to be looked as a scoreboard for most readers, given the obvious context of that era. Let's see what the experts have to say at this point; the reason why I invited Ke4roh and others to this discussion is due in part of Justin's surprising absence in here where significant inputs and advices from subject matter experts are needed in order to reach an amicable resolution; in this case WP:ALLARGUMENTS apply. I regret that I haven't thought about WP:RFC earlier, though it's too late by now. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
UNCOMPLETED FLIGHT
A flight is deemed to be uncompleted if:
a) an accident occurs during the flight resulting in the death of any member of the crew within 48 hours or,
b) any member of the crew definitively leaves the spaceship during the flight.
Note: In the case of space stations which qualify as spaceships under 2.16 below, 2.15 (b) above shall not apply.
record disputes or discrepancies in Olympic sportsmisses the mark because according to the sources, there is no controversy about Gagarin making the first human spaceflight. You even acknowledged yourself that there is no controversy. Per the sources, your position is a WP:FRINGE view. You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting WP:FRINGE views. So I'll ask you this outright, and I expect an answer: why are you promoting WP:FRINGE views on Wikipedia? TompaDompa ( talk) 13:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body. For years, the Soviet Union hid this information from the world at large, omitting the pilot-egress portion of the Vostok flight plan and contending that Gagarin returned to Earth in his craft, therefore qualifying for FAI records and avoiding any political naysaying or second-guessing by Western powers looking to discredit Gagarin’s achievements. A similar space flight soon validated the rationale behind this subterfuge. On May 5, 1961—less than a month after Gagarin’s flight—U.S. astronaut Alan Shepard journeyed into and returned from outer space without leaving his Freedom 7 capsule (which could land safely in part because of its ability to splash down over the ocean). The Soviet Union’s deception went undiscovered for decades, well after others had surpassed both Gagarin’s and Shepard’s FAI records.
Gagarin and Shepard did indeed made spaceflight, except the former is "uncompleted spaceflight"is WP:Original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. It's a textbook example: you combined different sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. TechRepublic—"an online trade publication and social community for IT professionals, providing advice on best practices and tools for the needs of IT decision" per our article on them—is hardly the most WP:Reliable source for what the mainstream view is on which the first human spaceflight was. And even then, they felt the need to qualify it with
"legally"(" scare quotes" in original). The National Air and Space Museum however says:
The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books.and
as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight.The FAI itself says
the FAI duly amended the rules to encompass this new form of aviation and so the awards were ratified.The book Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo (a source you brought up—and quote mined, as noted by PaulT2022) says
Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight. And the Seeker article (not exactly a great source on this, but again one you brought up and quoted selectively) says
the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books.and
After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules.You do understand that
almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflightmeans that the notion that it wasn't is a WP:FRINGE view, right? Your whole "it's about semantics" argument is a complete red herring. It doesn't matter if you're promoting a WP:FRINGE interpretation of events or a WP:FRINGE interpretation of words—it's still WP:FRINGE. So answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison, and SYNTH is not just any synthesis which is significant because
in 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia. Furthermore, considering the wording of the 2.15 of present FAI sporting code, calling Vostok 1 as an "uncompleted flight" doesn't necessarily makes it not a spaceflight; it's simply a precisionist categorization based on the nature of the flight which is a little bit like how suborbital and orbital flights are distinguished. Again and sadly, that is also vulnerable to the eyes of the beholders as well. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.)? Anyway, answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa ( talk) 17:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Guess what? We have been reinventing a whole wheel without knowing it. A paragon of virtue for @
Randy Kryn:'s Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it
can be found in
Timeline of space travel by nationality where a footnote stated:
Under Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules, the Vostok missions are not deemed true spaceflights, as cosmonauts did not land with the spacecraft (they ejected from the spacecraft and landed separately). The first Soviet mission that did fulfill this requirement was Voskhod 1. ("FAI Astronautic Records Commission – Sporting Code Section 8" (PDF). Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-04-09.) However, despite this issue, the FAI does recognize Yuri Gagarin as the first person to complete a spaceflight.
The page history indicated a silent yet far more longstanding consensus, than the passage of Alan Shepard as stated above. In order to be lucid about the extent of "status quo" over there, here are a few links:
What if, we settle on that instead and hence make the remaining passage into only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
? @
JustinTime55: @
PaulT2022: @
Randy Kryn: what's your take on this?
193.233.171.17 (
talk) 18:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Temporary halts at non-manned space stations or places other than the planet Earth, either with the purpose of refurbishing the spacecraft or making repairs, are not considered termination of flight as long as all work is performed by the original crew, the same original crew resumes the mission, and no other human beings are involved. Regarding Shepard's
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraftalone, it is backed up by Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler, which describes Freedom 7 as
1st flight to end with the crew aboardon page 25, near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
a sitewide WP:RFCjust seems like WP:Forum shopping to me. You started at Talk:Space Race, where
all other editors agree[d] your edits were pooras CMD put it, then moved here (despite saying that you wouldn't, as Andyjsmith noted) where you have again been told by multiple editors that your suggestions violate Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, and now you're suggesting to take it a step further? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained, there are BBC sources in other languages like this which are essentially the expanded version of the original report; they actually touched it for a bit before ending with well rounded closure saying that he's ultimately the first man in space or so. To WP:IAR a bit and assuming implicit agreement I gonna put the BBC article alongside the sources at those pages, due in part of the preparing of all possibilities with regards to the looming RFC. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 11:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you really believe that adding this non-English citation which 99% of English Wiki reader cannot read helps in any way?. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the brief and informal consultations and feedbacks from a particular subject matter expert on spaceflight topics who's also a de-facto lead editor in these fields within Wikipedia, it is learned that the following facts are present in historical consensus:
Gagarin is acknowledged as first human in space and in orbit; as the FAI decided, it's a trivial technicality he didn't land in the craft.
Shepard is the first American in space; also first to control his spacecraft and land in it (but no cigar as far as "first in space" goes).
Pursuant to the feedback which I hope will be a tiebreaker and thus avert
WP:RFC and further
WP:DRAMA; the former having the side effect of wasting editors' time, it should be okay to pare the passage at
Alan Shepard's in the aforementioned timeline articles down to First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
, or simply smerge with First human-piloted space flight
to become first to control his spacecraft and land in it
though the latter could fail relevant style guide since the wording is not "professional" enough.
With regards to Yuri Gagarin and again in the pages discussed here, taking account of the suggestions from @ Randy Kryn: putting a so-called "asterisk on the entry" in the form of Template:NoteTag with a near carbon copy from Gagarin's biographical article stating the following should be good to go:
Gagarin ejected from the capsule during landing. Due to this there were concerns the spaceflight would not be recognized by the
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth.
As this looks to be a last turn before RFC is inevitable, everyone here is invited to ponder about this. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
wasting editors' time. I agree that further discussion on this—here or elsewhere—is unlikely to be productive. This is the second venue (after Talk:Space Race) that has resoundly rejected your suggestions. Closing this discussion seems reasonable considering that you do not appear to be willing to just disengage. I would view you opening any new discussions on this, such as the RfC you mention, as overt WP:Forum shopping (as mentioned at WT:RFC). TompaDompa ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to herewhich was long since fixed, and the omission of GALCIT which is actually a mere section below this discussion about Gagarin. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained on Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race. 204.15.72.92 other changes were considered deficient by all other Editors and should not be included in any articles:
IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
it seems like way too much WP:Wikidrama being made of a dispute which should be easily resolvable by growing the hell up and presenting the verifiable mainstream facts in a NPOV way. This is one thing that is absolutely umambigous. Once this issue is amicably resolved, I hope ya'll have the best of all lucks. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraftor smerge to become something like
first to control his spacecraft and land in iton the aforementioned affected pages, and we can agree on it in principle, then we can skip waiting for Justin and proceed to a swift closure. 194.145.237.79 ( talk) 16:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I see that three Editors involved in this discussion have all confirmed that the discussion should be closed on the basis that a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained: as its funny that it is identical to this text I was in the process of drafting in my Sandbox. However I now see that you now admitt above that you were reading my sandbox before you posted your comments. Do you do that often to try and get advantage in discussions? Ilenart626 ( talk)
Looking at the latest proposals from anom I do not see anything useful or worth discussing further. Have requested closure at [ [31]], may take a few days depending on availability of an uninvolved Editor. Ilenart626 ( talk) 21:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned, the "Origins" section in
Space Race gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like
Qian Xuesen and the
GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945.
inaccurate.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have now proceeded to make this edit on the article reflecting the existence of such program to maintain NPOV. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Passages regarding the Pioneer program had been expanded as well. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Unfortunately they all had been reverted by
User:Ilenart626 under the spurious reasons of being unsourced, despite the fact that the passage pre-edit regarding the lunar probes has no sources either since it was
stating the obvious.
The Pioneer program had one successful lunar flyby, Pioneer 4 in March 1959. The Surveyor program had five successful soft landings out of seven attempts from 1966 to 1968. The Lunar Orbiter program had five successes out of five attempts in 1966–1967
.
204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions. To pretend otherwise would be more akin to a veiled WP:JDLI. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The proposed passages regarding lunar probes has been restored, this time with citations. I'll be awaiting comments regarding
GALCIT on whether although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed
qualifies
WP:BLUESKY to see how it goes.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 21:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
At this point, everyone here at this noticeboard is aware that there are multiple NPOV disputes at the Space race article. You don’t need to raise every single one of them here. Also, continuing to argue between the same three or four editors is becoming disruptive. Step back, and give others a chance to think about what you have already said repeatedly. Blueboar ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss ( talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it's the children who are wrong.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Further to the above, there are multiple issues that are being discussed on the talk page. Community input would be helpful as it would facilitate the dispute resolution process by increasing the probability that each one of them do not need to be resolved by a RFC Thundercloss ( talk) 16:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Does the following statement represent the WP:BIASED citation fairly and without editorial bias? ( Special:Diff/1096776490)
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use." [1]
A proposed revision of this statement was ( diff):
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried". [1]
According to
Special:Diff/1096788266 which undid said revision: Ease of installation has been over-emphasized enough already. Deleting added over-emphasis.
The current full statement in the article is:
In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. [2] In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use." [1]
The proposed full statement was:
In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. [2] In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried". [1]
I doubt it's fruitful to discuss this at Talk:GrapheneOS, so I'm bringing this to attention of NPOVN and the editors. (Legal attribution: Statement from the GrapheneOS article, authors Special:Contributions/84.250.14.116 and User:Yae4.) 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said ... use."is unnecessary. Why are we putting so much weight on one reviewer's opinion of an OS? Ovinus ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
References
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack, there’s discussion about this proposed sentence: “It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." The question is whether/how the first wikilink affects the neutrality of the sentence, and whether that first wikilink should therefore be included or excluded.
I’d prefer to keep the discussion centralized there, but would appreciate if editors here would please assess the situation and comment over there at article talk. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
If a RS discusses a vote for a bill (or similar) and then lists either supporters or opposition, when is that DUE in a BLP about the politician? I asked a similar question earlier this year [1]. Recently a sentence to the effect of "[BLP] was one of # who voted against NATO expansion" was added to several politician's BLPs [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
My question/concern is regards to what is needed to establish weight for inclusion in such a case. What sort of sourcing is needed for such vote listing to become DUE? Personally I think any addition like this needs two things. First, it needs sourcing that says why the BLP's vote was significant. That shouldn't be just "they voted against the Obviously Good Bill". Rather the addition to the Wiki article needs to explain why that vote is significant in context of the politician. "Senator X has consistently supported programs for [cause] including these [list]." Second, it needs a RS that supports not only that they voted for X (that could be confirmed by government records). It needs a RS to say why this vote is significant to the senator. Else we are engaged in OR by using our own opinions rather than RSs to say the vote is DUE in context of the BLP.
In the case of the MTG article the talk page seems mixed on inclusion with some saying this supports existing themes in the article (to what extent is that OR?) while others disagree. In the case of the Miller BLP a large swath of the article is little more than statements that she voted for/against various things. This seems to be a general issue with political BLPs. I will add a project politics notice. Springee ( talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is saying every vote is worthy of inclusion, neither is it true that a single vote could never be included if that vote got enough coverage and was relevant or important enoughThis seems like a bit of a non sequitur; I didn't say anyone was saying the first thing, and I was not asserting the second. I do think immediately juxtaposing a politician's stated opinions with how they vote--when that connection is not made in the source--is inappropriate synthesis. But it's likely that a secondary source on how a politician voted will say something about their history. Ovinus ( talk) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I think theres a severe misreading of WEIGHT here, in that people think that if they can find five or ten sources on something that means it has the due weight to be included. The real question is how much weight is given to this one vote in proportion to say their entire career, or term of office, or even year. If something is a footnote in the overall coverage of the person it lacks the weight to be included here. If it is something that a biography of the person would give some space to then it may be appropriate to include. But just because you can find a dozen news articles saying so and so voted against some bill does not mean that it has due weight to be included. nableezy - 23:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
But if sources do not give it weight relative to every other thing they give weight to then it doesnt belong.I think Andrevan was just trying to keep on track with policy. The green words from your post above sound like you have got the policy wrong, which is all Andre said. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, I'll start by saying I am sympathetic to your position that if a BLP already discusses a lot of related content (MTG and Ukraine) then it's easier to say her vote here is DUE based on being part of a pattern. In reviewing The Hill I see it mentions how these people voted on several bills but I don't see that it makes any point beyond that. Basically the source article is a list in text format. So my question is how would we decide this content is DUE in MTG's article but not in say Dan Bishop's article? I'm asking for a generalized guideline rather than something specific for this instance since this is something that happens quite a bit. I also appreciate the thoughtful engagement you've been offering. Springee ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
As a general group question, if an example like this comes up where an article says "This is a bill and here is what the bill is about. Here are the people who voted for/against" how would we decide if this content is DUE (or BALANCEASPECTS which is what we normally mean when we say DUE)? The discussion above is long but I'm not sure we have any better guidance than when we started and this discussion seems far less clear vs the one from earlier this year. Springee ( talk) 16:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
People, you can't fight in here. This is
|
---|
|
Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:Astrology#RfC about short description. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 01:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be an NPOV issue in Space Race in which there are concerns that some or all of that article may be unjustifiably skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints. Attempts to rectify the issue had been made by me and others, such as the addition of this edit out of the belief that they are of pertinence to the presentation of the information within this article.
Unfortunately, around two editors had reverted those under the very vague reasons of "unencyclopedic", "trivia" or "not suited here", and as it reached 3RR I first attempted to reach one of the reverters at talk page to discuss the issue, but found out that it was semi-protected. Thus I'd had initially brought the issue to the article talk page for discussion or solicit third opinions from subject matter experts.
As the discussion went on, I proofread the article once again and found out more issues:
This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945.inaccurate.
Valentina Tereshkova, was launched into space on Vostok 6 on June 16, 1963,[90] as (possibly) a medical experiment. She was the only one to fly of a small group of female parachutist factory workers (unlike the male cosmonauts who were military test pilots),[91] chosen by the head of cosmonaut training because he read a tabloid article about the "Mercury 13" group of women wanting to become astronauts, and got the mistaken idea that NASA was actually entertaining this.
Procedurally dropped due to
WP:BURNOUT related to
Chronic Covid Syndrome.
At least for me, it fails Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as it is skewed towards pro Russian viewpoint, no matter how subtle it is. In a larger way, it could invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
They could get an impression that USSR/Russia's achievements were overrated or bloated to the detriment of the US, even though there is a dictum in the FAQ at the article talk page header stating that the race resulted in a tie and no one "won" the race. As a result some of them would go dig deeper and find out that there are nuances or caveats behind those achievements and proceed to either edit the page or just make a fuss about it. If it's reverted or so on then they could easily switch to the latter, where it could very well become something like the Streisand effect and produce a perception that Wikipedia violated WP:NPOV conventions by "secretly loving Russia" in here which I fear could produce net harm to the project in the long term.
As the discussion there had headed into a deadlock, with no input from subject matter experts as of yet, I have decided to raise this issue at this noticeboard. Any help would be appreciated in resolving this NPOV issue. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 10:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute has by now extended to Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race where after a short RR, me and User:TompaDompa had temporarily restored the following passage while marking it up for discussion.
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then
FAI definitions.
Relevant references:
The side advocating the removal claimed their rationale on the grounds of WP:MINORASPECT, although there was long and implicit consensus to preserve the passage before today. Conversely, me and perhaps some others like subject matter expert User:JustinTime55 who had upheld the passage because FAI rules at 1960s required takeoff and landing inside spacecraft. In this case, distinction matters and it would violate WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and become a case of WP:POVDELETION if the fact was left out.
Taking account of other editors' concerns about WP:MINORASPECT while mindful of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance where suppression of information risk making more problems rather than resolution, I had attempted to relegate the passage into a Template:NoteTag which can be seen here. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.I'll also note that https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his (cited above) says
The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books.and
as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight.So going by that source, the assertion that Shepard's was the first "proper" spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view that must not be included. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information, just as a note. According to the page, textually speaking, they merely state that Gagarin was the
first to orbit the Earth. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
From a quick Google books search, I was able to uncover the following:
The problem was, under FAI rules, a pilot must stay with his ship from takeoff to landing. ail out and it doesn't count.
Years later, when Russian officials admitted that Gagarin had ejected from the Vostok 1 spacecraft during descent and did not land in the same craft in which he started his journey, some FAI officials raised a technicality that questioned the official status of his “first-in-spaceflight” record. Founded in 1905, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) is the world organization responsible for setting standards and keeping records within the fields of aeronautics and astronautics. In 1961, the FAI rules required that a pilot (that is, an astronaut or cosmonaut) must land with the spacecraft to be considered as having achieved an official spaceflight worthy of entry into the FAI book of records.
It was the second source stating that it was FAI officials and not average Joes that raised the technicality of his "first in spaceflight" record. That itself says a lot. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months later,
when the International Aeronautical Federation, or FAI (the
acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to certify
the world records being claimed for the flight. A longstanding
FAI rule could have meant an embarrassing propaganda defeat:
to qualify for any new world flying records, a pilot must take
off and land in his aircraft or spacecraft. The rule book was
quite explicit on this point.
As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an
ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the
booster in the event of a launch failure. The same system was
to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three-ton
spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large enough
to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing. The pilot was
supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 10,000 feet and come
down separately. Gagarin had almost certainly used this
method.
In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet
delegate with the crucial question: “Where was the pilot on in
return in relation to the space vehicle?” Perhaps sensing a plot
to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the Soviet
spokesman loudly protested: “Ask the Americans if the U.S.A.
believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were actually
made. All the people of the world have already endorsed
Gagarin’s flight and have accepted it as fact.” The wrangling
went on for five hours, with the FAI officials demanding
documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship and the
Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as
obstructionist and insulting.
Finally, as dinnertime approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the Soviet
version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the capsule.
Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that
Gagarin had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would
point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their
claims. But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough
memory to be a successful liar. A year later cosmonaut
Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he
blurted out, “Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the
ship”; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a
small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful
Soviet space officials would point to it as “the first time that a
crew could land in its ship.” Ten years later a book by chief
Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would describe
how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while Gagarin
himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine.
Still, that isn't 1971 yet, when the full details of his landing came out. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 14:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Despite the subsequent FAI record challenge based on a technicality within the rules, Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight.
Some authors speculate that in the case if FAI were to reject Gagarin's record based on a technicality, Shepard may have been considered to perform the first spaceflight.
expressing skepticism against Russian achievements in general. PaulT2022 ( talk) 15:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The particulars of this process, and the fact of Gagarin's separate landing, were not revealed until 1978.
Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.
However, later on FAI eventually recognised Gagarin as the first human to fly into space due to practical reasons.- every word here is a misrepresentation:
FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished(paraphrasing the penultimate paragraph from here)
Some sources speculated that per the interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. However FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.
Some sources speculated that per formalistic interpretation of FAI definitions in 1961, Shepard, rather than Gagarin, may have been considered to complete the first human spaceflight mission. This is due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI later changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.They would be a note tag attached to both Gagarin's "first human spaceflight" and Shepard's "First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft" in those Timeline articles. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
the equivalent of Charles Lindbergh deadhanding his plane to Paris while bailing out onto a ship somewhere near the Irish coastis the personal opinion of an editor, which carries no weight here. It is not appropriate to include this fringe view in the articles, not even in a footnote and not even if we clearly describe it as a fringe view. Debunking it unprompted would be legitimizing it (as worthy of being explicitly debunked) to an extent that is simply not justified by the sources we have. As Ilenart626 noted, this is covered at Yuri Gagarin#Vostok 1, which currently says:
That is the proper place and manner to cover this information. Sources on the topic of the articles at hand—the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively—generally do not cover this aspect from what I've seen. That makes it a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included because it would be giving it undue weight. The same goes for Shepard being the first astronaut to land inside the spacecraft—it's a WP:MINORASPECT which is not to be included. At best, we can place {{ FAQ}} on the talk pages (see Talk:September 11 attacks for an example of how the template can be used). If we do so, it should say something like:At about 7,000 metres (23,000 ft), Gagarin ejected from the descending capsule as planned and landed using a parachute. [1] There were concerns Gagarin's spaceflight record would not be certified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. [2] Gagarin and Soviet officials initially refused to admit that he had not landed with his spacecraft, [3] an omission which became apparent after Titov's flight on Vostok 2 four months later. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth. [4]
What do you think about this, PaulT2022? TompaDompa ( talk) 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Q: Didn't Alan Shepard technically make the first human spaceflight?
A: No. This idea stems from old Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules carried over from aviation stipulating that the pilot had to land inside the vessel, while Yuri Gagarin parachuted out of Vostok 1. The FAI decided to certify Gagarin's record and amended their rules to not require landing inside the spacecraft as they judged that landing safely was the important part. Gagarin is almost universally recognized as having made the first human spaceflight, and the conception that he did not is a WP:FRINGE view.
Thus, he did not "legally" complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body.
If nationals from two different countries claim a record, it is the FAI's job to examine the submitted documentation and make a ruling as to who has accomplished the feat first.
Prematurely closing this discussion would be akin to saying a given political candidate had won the election when there are uncounted postal votes that could result in a loss or a tie. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Most conversations do not need to be closed.per WP:WHENCLOSE.
Silence is the weakest form of consensusper WP:SILENTCONSENSUS and it has now been challenged—several editors here agree that this is not appropriate to include.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.per WP:ONUS. You are promoting what is per the sources a WP:FRINGE view in article space. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, it would be more precise to state that it is (or was) a significant minority view rather than a "fringe" opinion, as it was the FAI officials that raise the technicality to the Soviet delegates.
This states that Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy.
Aside from those, one thing which I notice that was overlooked from this discussion so far is that there is subtle yet significant etymological differences between "first man in space", "first human spaceflight mission", and "technically completing the first human spaceflight mission". It is not helpful to move the goalpost within this context, such as conflating the three altogether. I will make a table here to explain it easier.
Question | Yuri Gagarin | Alan Shepard |
---|---|---|
First person to cross the 100km Karman line boundary and into space? | Yes. | No. |
First human spaceflight mission (irrespective of outcomes or technicalities)? | Yes. | No. |
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions? | No. He ejected out of his spacecraft before landing. | Yes. He was in the spacecraft all the time. |
The sources simply implied Point 3 based on the formalistic interpretation of 1961 FAI rules. Moreover, aside from WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:CHILDPROTECT (due to an unfortunate fact that a thread attempting to do p*do advocacy is just above this Outpost Tavern), there is an interesting caveat in WP:NPOV in the form of WP:NONAZIS prohibiting views that attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany, Nazism and the likes from appearing on Wikipedia, presumably broadly construed. It is more than the simplistic discontent among readers.
As time goes on, we may very well see the editing community outlawing any edits or views that promote Russocentric totalitarian beliefs like Rashism or Russkiy Mir (Russian world) in the same fashion as above. When it happens any contents within any topic that is deemed too slanted towards pro-Russian viewpoints will be up for challenge, as with concurrent to the discrediting of Russophilic ideologies, a section in
WP:NORACISTS states that racists generally believes in That their culture is superior to others
and editors would want to err on the safe side, particularly given the association of Gagarin mythos by Putin with his war and Russia in general, and the display of separatist flags by Russian cosmonauts within the
International Space Station.
This is entirely similar to the Midas Curse. In fact as per this Vanity Fair article which is already put here, the beginning had already started. Hence, if we remove the passage in the name of fixing "false balance", more likely than not we'd be ending up reinventing the wheel and end up on the starting point once again which by all means is going to be unnecessarily disruptive to all of us. Considering that the retention of passage in full may be akin to fighting fire with fire and causing undue weight, at this time the rewritting of passage into something as anodyne as possible and subsequent relegation into a note tag may be the least bad solution out, within the situation that is like between rock and a hard place.
I digress, indeed. But the gist is circumstances may wildly change so much that it would be better not to commit the sin of omission of throwing the baby out with the water. In the meantime only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
would remain as main text within the articles, because what's the point of having to eject from spaceships like Soyuz or Dragon every time when there is a room of improvement to eliminate this major discomfort? It's an impressive and significant technological advancement on its own, despite being a "one small step".
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 17:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Technically completing the first human spaceflight mission by 1961 FAI definitions?- this is unsourced, as there's no reliable source that states FAI ever recognised who made the first human spaceflight (besides the Angelo's childrens' book written by a non-expert), and its trivial to verify that FAI indeed didn't make such judgement.
Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body". But at this stage, I'd be happy to rewrite the proposed notetag into a more anodyne manner. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
most readers don't really bother to click the link to the talk page, that would in fact be a feature rather than a bug. By trying to get people to read about a WP:FRINGE view, you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention that inclusion of these links is against WP:EL guideline. WP:ELYES states that
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The Smithsonian article in particular could be an ad hoc FAQ for readers, not unlike as proposed by Tompa. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
mentions of the controversy, but ultimately affirmed the fact that Gagarin was the first in space. Rather, it clarifies that there is no controversy—that the idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. We shouldn't try to inform readers about WP:FRINGE views they are not already aware of. I added the link to the FAQ, because that's the appropriate place to put it in this context. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
you are promoting a WP:FALSEBALANCE—surely you must realize this?, maybe. However the WP:FRINGE invocation that's now being thrown around like a shibboleth also contains the BBC Trust policy that
This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
First interplanetary escape without undercarriage cutoff.[clarification needed]would be FRINGE-y as well. However obviously that would be not germane in the discussion here due to it being in different era. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER may be of relevance while Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space and balance detoured that
Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers.
Please note that the scope of this discussion isn't really limited to Gagarin and Shepard alone; the topic include other pro-Russian POV issues such as the omission of Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT. However as recently COVID hit me and I'm still grappling with neurological issues, I may leave this all entirely to the community to run on its own after the issues regarding Gagarin and Qian Xuesen were resolved.
Fine. I rewrote the proposed tag ground up into the following:
Some sources reported that Vostok 1 did not meet the
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's requirements of establishing records due to a technicality stipulating the presence of pilot in spacecraft during launch and landing. FAI changed its rules to recognise that the manner in which pilot of a spacecraft lands is irrelevant for establishing the record as long as safe return is accomplished.
Otherwise, taking PaulT2022's suggestion, for this time I will put the Tech Republic link and some of the rest into the Timeline articles, this time as a citation on Gagarin's "first human spaceflight mission" or so, while removing the text from Alan Shepard's section which according to page history has been there for about five years. 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
204.15.72.92 ( talk) 18:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I kindly request not to attribute to me what I haven't said? Sure, however as the old saying goes, you can't unring a bell. Please keep that in mind next time. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
If Gagarin and Titov both ejected before landing, the Soviet Union would lose its spot in history as the first nation to launch a man into space. But I guess it's late now. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 21:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books.and
After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules.In other words, there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decades. The idea that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE view. It's time to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
there is no controversy and there hasn't been for decadesyet. But fine, I'll move on to the next section for now. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
if two nations were going to vie for the record of first in space, the FAI should have clear rules to determine a winner.
The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed.
get a lifecan often be construed as
appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Frequently asked questions
|
I'm not sure how that would be different from disruptive editing. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, it can also be argued from the other way that this discussion has only a participation of a handful of users without inputs from actual subject matter experts and the rest of the editing community, therefore looking more or less, to paraphrase a quote from For All Mankind (TV series), an "orchestrated discussion". To illustrate more, the page views of the articles stand in the thousands. Moving from that, it's helpful to read this too. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 10:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established. Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum then be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead". This means that the affected pages are restored to versions like this on an interim basis, pending the outcome of this discussion.
Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted, which is very likely behind the rationale of putting up the FAQ templates. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 12:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deadlock is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing your edits were poor.Please WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
originally agreed upon. I proposed it, but as I said
I don't mind the FAQ being removed.You are in favour of including it. Ilenart626 is opposed. I'm not entirely sure what PaulT2022 thinks. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Speaking about the controversy itself and just to explain more of the context, this would be akin to the case of
Ferdinand Magellan. Despite dying in the
Philippines in the middle of the circumnavigational expedition, he was widely reported in textbooks as being the first to circumnavigate the globe for many years. Now the
National Geographic and History Channel had came out to ask people to think again
and that someone else may deserve the true credit for being the first person to circumnavigate globe
.
A more precise analogy can be found in
Claims to the first powered flight. For example, it is arguable that
Hiram Maxim had achieved a first powered heavier than air flight simply because during trials in 1894, the machine lifted and was prevented from rising by the outriggers. During its test run, all the outriggers were engaged, showing that it had developed enough lift to take off, but in so doing, it pulled up the track; the tethered "flight" was aborted in time to prevent disaster
, with exactly the same vein used to justify Gagarin's claim. To put it simply, it left the rail, flew a little ways only to crash. But is he remembered as the first man to fly a heavier-than-air?
Moreover,
Alberto Santos-Dumont rather than Wright Brothers was recognised in
Brazil as the first person to make a flight simply because it's the first of their kind recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
. There were differing views of criteria in order to gain recognition as first heavier than air flight too and within such backdrops no doubt there's a point to be nitpicky by law and by fact records, just like
the list of firsts in aviation with First confirmed manned powered flight
made by
Clément Ader in particular, coupled with the present wider turbulent context, not helped with this
Newsweek article from two months ago alleging Gagarin of touching the Queen's leg. There'd still be the argument on whether to classify
John Glenn's Friendship 7 as technically the first to complete the first human orbital spaceflight by the strict interpretation, had Shepard beat Gagarin into space.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
By now the rough consensus appeared to favor the restoration of the FAQ templates, so I had proceeded to edit the according articles' talk pages. However, those templates may be superseded if it's decided to move the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/FAQ pursuant to PaulT2022's suggestions. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 11:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
However, speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility, while we had already circled the wagon so many times regarding the problems that would arise if the passage was completely left out, even as a template in talk page. I'm pretty sure you have noticed the guideline stating that especially contentious content should be relegated to the talk page rather than deleted.
implicit consensusto include the FAQ, and adjusting its phrasing doesn't create one. Stop misrepresenting the discussion as you have repeatedly done. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
implicit consensusand
stop misrepresentating the discussion, like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it. As for the very latter, no, quite the opposite and not the first time. Instead, aside from the "implicit consensus", I see that you had mistaken my brief restoration edits of interim nature pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST as disruptive, while giving no condemnation to edits made by Ilenart626. Please note that at worst it reeks of double standards and even be construed as gaslighting, which of course would not be taken kindly by the editing community. (Disclaimer: The original computer network was down not unlike the 2022 Rogers Communications outage so I have to use another network at another place, hence the address difference).
Last original encounter with one of the nine major planets recognized in 1981. These were allowed to stand without much fuss, making this more akin to unnecessarily make a mountain out of a molehill from that perspective alone. If this debacle occurs on Simple English Wikipedia, then you might have a point as that Wikipedia is described by Tim Dowling of The Guardian newspaper that "the Simple English version tends to stick to commonly accepted facts". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 04:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
like it or not due to the improvement edit, by the views of WP:COMMONSENSE it can be broadly interpreted as being "hmm, okay" with it– I'm the one who made the improvement edit. I'm telling you that I don't agree that it means that the FAQ should be included. You could have asked me what I thought rather than assuming that I would be in favour of including the FAQ, and it's not like my approval would instantly create consensus in favour of including the FAQ anyway. The reason I called your edits disruptive is that you agree that the material is WP:FRINGE, that there is no controversy, and that the material does not belong in article space—and yet you added the material to article space to make a WP:POINT. I already told you this. You are being disruptive by promoting WP:FRINGE views that you acknowledge are fringe views, by WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, and by refusing to WP:Drop the stick. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 ( talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Due to the unfortunate fact that some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory, alongside problems in my original computer network, it's better to do a temporary mutual withdrawal and take a break for a few days now.
Next, since this is a semantical debacle, I'd have to retract my earlier statements that agrees with Tompa's ad nauseum assertion regarding WP:FRINGE whether tacit or not, on the grounds it was a product of mischaracterization as, to quote a comment, "scientific question".
In the meantime an administrator from Simple English Wikipedia had been invited to comment on this discussion, in order to advice on the suitability of forking contents from Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race into Simple English Wikipedia. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 17:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
some of us may be entering the WP:ASPERSIONS territory– yes, you made accusations of gaslighting. Now stop moving the goalposts. It doesn't matter if the question is one of science or semantics—per the sources, the position that Gagarin did not make the first human spaceflight is a WP:FRINGE one. It makes no difference if that's because it's a WP:FRINGE interpretation of "(human) spaceflight" semantically or because of some scientific reason. It's still WP:FRINGE, per the sources. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
accusations of gaslighting, it was made in the context of your misintepretation of procedural interim edits pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO and WP:PROCESSFIRST. For all the rest here, I would therefore share the page histories of Timeline of the Space Race, Timeline of space exploration and Space Age so that what were the "status quo ante bellum" would be clear enough in the air.
insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion.
For the record the passage had actually stayed in the articles for six years or so, and in practice to arouse readers' interest in learning info from Wikipedia itself, including these kind of facts is also encouraged and even mandated, provided they are verifiable and given the proper weight, the latter again vulnerable to differing subjective judgement. This is not to mention that given the current international situation where readers are much more enthusiastic to challenge the veracity or extent of achievements made by Russia or USSR akin to lustration.
Summing these up, a number of middle way solutions have been proposed, such as the FAQ templates in the talk page of these articles and/or on relevant WikiProjects, alongside addition of footnotes. If (re-)inclusion of the passage is judged to be more preferable, then it certainly have to be rewritten so that it, to paraphrase a comment does not diminish Gagarin's flight in any way. Within the affected articles, a possible example would be the paring down the passage on Alan Shepard to just First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft.
and leaving the rest into footnotes. I'd be thankful too if you can advise on how to proceed from here.
193.233.171.17 (
talk) 19:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject(i.e. the history of space exploration and the history of the Space Race, respectively). TompaDompa ( talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Shepard being the first to land inside the spacecraft, the Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler describes Freedom 7 as
1st flight to end with the crew aboardon page 25. It's near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yuri Gagarin becomes the first person fly into space and completes one orbitand
Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space on a sub-orbital flight. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
first to land inside the spacecraftgoes more to technical achievements while Dyumin's
first grandfather in spacegoes more to "personal achievements", which the former would undoubtedly fit into the criteria in Timeline of the Space Race's lead sections specifically that of
technical innovation. After all it's bound to be a sheer absurdity in the (aero)space field if pilots and by extension passengers cannot make their way home safely without jumping out of their craft in the midst of their landing to this day, though presently I have no strong feelings against including Dyumin's fact in those articles and/or elsewhere in Wikipedia since I actually spend more time reading than editing. Regarding that the
source is also neither on history of space exploration or the history of the Space Race specifically but on the history of human spaceflight, concurrently they are interwoven or overlapping to each other as far as I can see regarding the standard perception of those fields. NASA has this stating
Unlike the early U.S. human spaceflight programs, Gagarin did not land inside of capsule. Instead, he ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute. Different from Praxis logs and just like most other citations, they reported on the fact that Gagarin did not remain inside the spacecraft, although all it takes to reach to the conclusion as explicitly stated by Praxis is an immediate inference probably in the veins of disjunctive syllogism. Taking account of the logical aspects, I'd say that they meets the bar for "other prominent definitions".
Disputed participation notesnear the bottom; the "some sources" wordings could be useful in this context as suggested earlier to cover that bit of info regarding the discrepancy of the Vostok 1 landing. The footnote methodology would also be useful if future disputes or discrepancies arise, in the ongoing advent of space exploration. After all despite our feelings and whatever is written, the Space Race sections of those timelines are bound to be looked as a scoreboard for most readers, given the obvious context of that era. Let's see what the experts have to say at this point; the reason why I invited Ke4roh and others to this discussion is due in part of Justin's surprising absence in here where significant inputs and advices from subject matter experts are needed in order to reach an amicable resolution; in this case WP:ALLARGUMENTS apply. I regret that I haven't thought about WP:RFC earlier, though it's too late by now. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
UNCOMPLETED FLIGHT
A flight is deemed to be uncompleted if:
a) an accident occurs during the flight resulting in the death of any member of the crew within 48 hours or,
b) any member of the crew definitively leaves the spaceship during the flight.
Note: In the case of space stations which qualify as spaceships under 2.16 below, 2.15 (b) above shall not apply.
record disputes or discrepancies in Olympic sportsmisses the mark because according to the sources, there is no controversy about Gagarin making the first human spaceflight. You even acknowledged yourself that there is no controversy. Per the sources, your position is a WP:FRINGE view. You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting WP:FRINGE views. So I'll ask you this outright, and I expect an answer: why are you promoting WP:FRINGE views on Wikipedia? TompaDompa ( talk) 13:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thus, he did not “legally” complete a piloted flight under the guidelines of the FAI, the international aeronautics governing body. For years, the Soviet Union hid this information from the world at large, omitting the pilot-egress portion of the Vostok flight plan and contending that Gagarin returned to Earth in his craft, therefore qualifying for FAI records and avoiding any political naysaying or second-guessing by Western powers looking to discredit Gagarin’s achievements. A similar space flight soon validated the rationale behind this subterfuge. On May 5, 1961—less than a month after Gagarin’s flight—U.S. astronaut Alan Shepard journeyed into and returned from outer space without leaving his Freedom 7 capsule (which could land safely in part because of its ability to splash down over the ocean). The Soviet Union’s deception went undiscovered for decades, well after others had surpassed both Gagarin’s and Shepard’s FAI records.
Gagarin and Shepard did indeed made spaceflight, except the former is "uncompleted spaceflight"is WP:Original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. It's a textbook example: you combined different sources to arrive at a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. TechRepublic—"an online trade publication and social community for IT professionals, providing advice on best practices and tools for the needs of IT decision" per our article on them—is hardly the most WP:Reliable source for what the mainstream view is on which the first human spaceflight was. And even then, they felt the need to qualify it with
"legally"(" scare quotes" in original). The National Air and Space Museum however says:
The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books.and
as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight.The FAI itself says
the FAI duly amended the rules to encompass this new form of aviation and so the awards were ratified.The book Human Spaceflight by Joseph A. Angelo (a source you brought up—and quote mined, as noted by PaulT2022) says
Gagarin's mission and marvelous accomplishment is still almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflight. And the Seeker article (not exactly a great source on this, but again one you brought up and quoted selectively) says
the FAI held a special meeting of delegates to reexamine Titov's records and reconsider Gagarin's. The result of the meeting was a change to the parameters that defined spaceflight rather than a change to the records. The parameters switched to focus on the payload launched; this technical achievement mattered more than how the astronaut or cosmonaut landed. That Gagarin had orbited the Earth was the real achievement, and both his and Titov's records remain in the FAI's books.and
After the decision to keep Gagarin's record intact, the early Vostok landing system went from a controversial issue to a historical oddity of the transition from flight in aircraft to spaceflight in capsules.You do understand that
almost universally recognized as the first human spaceflightmeans that the notion that it wasn't is a WP:FRINGE view, right? Your whole "it's about semantics" argument is a complete red herring. It doesn't matter if you're promoting a WP:FRINGE interpretation of events or a WP:FRINGE interpretation of words—it's still WP:FRINGE. So answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison, and SYNTH is not just any synthesis which is significant because
in 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia. Furthermore, considering the wording of the 2.15 of present FAI sporting code, calling Vostok 1 as an "uncompleted flight" doesn't necessarily makes it not a spaceflight; it's simply a precisionist categorization based on the nature of the flight which is a little bit like how suborbital and orbital flights are distinguished. Again and sadly, that is also vulnerable to the eyes of the beholders as well. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.)? Anyway, answer the question: why are you so insistent on including this? TompaDompa ( talk) 17:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Guess what? We have been reinventing a whole wheel without knowing it. A paragon of virtue for @
Randy Kryn:'s Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it
can be found in
Timeline of space travel by nationality where a footnote stated:
Under Fédération Aéronautique Internationale rules, the Vostok missions are not deemed true spaceflights, as cosmonauts did not land with the spacecraft (they ejected from the spacecraft and landed separately). The first Soviet mission that did fulfill this requirement was Voskhod 1. ("FAI Astronautic Records Commission – Sporting Code Section 8" (PDF). Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-04-09.) However, despite this issue, the FAI does recognize Yuri Gagarin as the first person to complete a spaceflight.
The page history indicated a silent yet far more longstanding consensus, than the passage of Alan Shepard as stated above. In order to be lucid about the extent of "status quo" over there, here are a few links:
What if, we settle on that instead and hence make the remaining passage into only First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
? @
JustinTime55: @
PaulT2022: @
Randy Kryn: what's your take on this?
193.233.171.17 (
talk) 18:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Temporary halts at non-manned space stations or places other than the planet Earth, either with the purpose of refurbishing the spacecraft or making repairs, are not considered termination of flight as long as all work is performed by the original crew, the same original crew resumes the mission, and no other human beings are involved. Regarding Shepard's
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraftalone, it is backed up by Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 by Tim Furniss and David J. Shayler, which describes Freedom 7 as
1st flight to end with the crew aboardon page 25, near the section "The Quest for Space". 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
a sitewide WP:RFCjust seems like WP:Forum shopping to me. You started at Talk:Space Race, where
all other editors agree[d] your edits were pooras CMD put it, then moved here (despite saying that you wouldn't, as Andyjsmith noted) where you have again been told by multiple editors that your suggestions violate Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, and now you're suggesting to take it a step further? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained, there are BBC sources in other languages like this which are essentially the expanded version of the original report; they actually touched it for a bit before ending with well rounded closure saying that he's ultimately the first man in space or so. To WP:IAR a bit and assuming implicit agreement I gonna put the BBC article alongside the sources at those pages, due in part of the preparing of all possibilities with regards to the looming RFC. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 11:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you really believe that adding this non-English citation which 99% of English Wiki reader cannot read helps in any way?. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the brief and informal consultations and feedbacks from a particular subject matter expert on spaceflight topics who's also a de-facto lead editor in these fields within Wikipedia, it is learned that the following facts are present in historical consensus:
Gagarin is acknowledged as first human in space and in orbit; as the FAI decided, it's a trivial technicality he didn't land in the craft.
Shepard is the first American in space; also first to control his spacecraft and land in it (but no cigar as far as "first in space" goes).
Pursuant to the feedback which I hope will be a tiebreaker and thus avert
WP:RFC and further
WP:DRAMA; the former having the side effect of wasting editors' time, it should be okay to pare the passage at
Alan Shepard's in the aforementioned timeline articles down to First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft
, or simply smerge with First human-piloted space flight
to become first to control his spacecraft and land in it
though the latter could fail relevant style guide since the wording is not "professional" enough.
With regards to Yuri Gagarin and again in the pages discussed here, taking account of the suggestions from @ Randy Kryn: putting a so-called "asterisk on the entry" in the form of Template:NoteTag with a near carbon copy from Gagarin's biographical article stating the following should be good to go:
Gagarin ejected from the capsule during landing. Due to this there were concerns the spaceflight would not be recognized by the
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the world governing body for setting standards and keeping records in the field, which at the time required that the pilot land with the craft. Gagarin's spaceflight records were nonetheless certified and reaffirmed by the FAI, which revised its rules, and acknowledged that the crucial steps of the safe launch, orbit, and return of the pilot had been accomplished. Gagarin is internationally recognised as the first human in space and first to orbit the Earth.
As this looks to be a last turn before RFC is inevitable, everyone here is invited to ponder about this. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
wasting editors' time. I agree that further discussion on this—here or elsewhere—is unlikely to be productive. This is the second venue (after Talk:Space Race) that has resoundly rejected your suggestions. Closing this discussion seems reasonable considering that you do not appear to be willing to just disengage. I would view you opening any new discussions on this, such as the RfC you mention, as overt WP:Forum shopping (as mentioned at WT:RFC). TompaDompa ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to herewhich was long since fixed, and the omission of GALCIT which is actually a mere section below this discussion about Gagarin. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained on Timeline of space exploration and Timeline of the Space Race. 204.15.72.92 other changes were considered deficient by all other Editors and should not be included in any articles:
IMO this isn't a scientific question, it is a question on the mere definition of a mere word in the English language "spaceflight" and other synonyms. In most areas it goes by the common meaning of the term and IMO what Yuri did is included within that. But the article can and should cover "who was first" under other prominent definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Gargarin made the first human spaceflight, the full trip. If he felt safer or had a reason to parachute down (I haven't read the full discussion) he carried the most important object which defined his mission as a human spaceflight: himself. Mentioning it on pages is an interesting fact, but it should be worded so it does not diminish, in any way, Gargarin's pioneering accomplishment and actually promotes it (although Albert II would have something to clear his throat about). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
it seems like way too much WP:Wikidrama being made of a dispute which should be easily resolvable by growing the hell up and presenting the verifiable mainstream facts in a NPOV way. This is one thing that is absolutely umambigous. Once this issue is amicably resolved, I hope ya'll have the best of all lucks. 193.233.171.17 ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraftor smerge to become something like
first to control his spacecraft and land in iton the aforementioned affected pages, and we can agree on it in principle, then we can skip waiting for Justin and proceed to a swift closure. 194.145.237.79 ( talk) 16:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I see that three Editors involved in this discussion have all confirmed that the discussion should be closed on the basis that a consensus was reached to resolve the issues raised by including this reference to a neutral source where Gagarin's primacy is explained: as its funny that it is identical to this text I was in the process of drafting in my Sandbox. However I now see that you now admitt above that you were reading my sandbox before you posted your comments. Do you do that often to try and get advantage in discussions? Ilenart626 ( talk)
Looking at the latest proposals from anom I do not see anything useful or worth discussing further. Have requested closure at [ [31]], may take a few days depending on availability of an uninvolved Editor. Ilenart626 ( talk) 21:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned, the "Origins" section in
Space Race gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like
Qian Xuesen and the
GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945.
inaccurate.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have now proceeded to make this edit on the article reflecting the existence of such program to maintain NPOV. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Passages regarding the Pioneer program had been expanded as well. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 22:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
References
Unfortunately they all had been reverted by
User:Ilenart626 under the spurious reasons of being unsourced, despite the fact that the passage pre-edit regarding the lunar probes has no sources either since it was
stating the obvious.
The Pioneer program had one successful lunar flyby, Pioneer 4 in March 1959. The Surveyor program had five successful soft landings out of seven attempts from 1966 to 1968. The Lunar Orbiter program had five successes out of five attempts in 1966–1967
.
204.15.72.92 ( talk) 09:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions. To pretend otherwise would be more akin to a veiled WP:JDLI. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The proposed passages regarding lunar probes has been restored, this time with citations. I'll be awaiting comments regarding
GALCIT on whether although civilian programs such as GALCIT (the precursor of Jet Propulsion Laboratory) existed
qualifies
WP:BLUESKY to see how it goes.
204.15.72.92 (
talk) 21:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
At this point, everyone here at this noticeboard is aware that there are multiple NPOV disputes at the Space race article. You don’t need to raise every single one of them here. Also, continuing to argue between the same three or four editors is becoming disruptive. Step back, and give others a chance to think about what you have already said repeatedly. Blueboar ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss ( talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it's the children who are wrong.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Further to the above, there are multiple issues that are being discussed on the talk page. Community input would be helpful as it would facilitate the dispute resolution process by increasing the probability that each one of them do not need to be resolved by a RFC Thundercloss ( talk) 16:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Does the following statement represent the WP:BIASED citation fairly and without editorial bias? ( Special:Diff/1096776490)
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use." [1]
A proposed revision of this statement was ( diff):
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried". [1]
According to
Special:Diff/1096788266 which undid said revision: Ease of installation has been over-emphasized enough already. Deleting added over-emphasis.
The current full statement in the article is:
In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. [2] In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use." [1]
The proposed full statement was:
In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. [2] In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use", but "GrapheneOS has so far been one of the easiest privacy experiences I've tried". [1]
I doubt it's fruitful to discuss this at Talk:GrapheneOS, so I'm bringing this to attention of NPOVN and the editors. (Legal attribution: Statement from the GrapheneOS article, authors Special:Contributions/84.250.14.116 and User:Yae4.) 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said ... use."is unnecessary. Why are we putting so much weight on one reviewer's opinion of an OS? Ovinus ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
References
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
At Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack, there’s discussion about this proposed sentence: “It was the most violent of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol since the Burning of Washington in 1814." The question is whether/how the first wikilink affects the neutrality of the sentence, and whether that first wikilink should therefore be included or excluded.
I’d prefer to keep the discussion centralized there, but would appreciate if editors here would please assess the situation and comment over there at article talk. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)